APEC 2024 Peru. Biden shafted to a corner in the back row. Xi in front row next to Peru's President
7/19/2013
The right COE Scheme
Please note that I used the word right and scheme. I could have said the best COE formula or the correct COE system. You see, the right scheme to different people means different things. The right scheme to a super talent is different from the right scheme of a layman or the right scheme of a crook. They are all right schemes to each one of them.
When a designer of a scheme starts from the point of a right scheme you can bet what are his objectives and goals. The current COE Scheme is the right scheme for the govt and for the rich buyers. It is the wrong scheme for the less well off buyers for sure, and for those who cannot do without a car, eg the invalids or handicaps, the families with dependent young and old that have to be ferried to and fro. That is the reason why so many people are so unhappy with the current right COE Scheme as it is not right to them. And that is also the reason why so many people have so many brilliant ideas to offer but will not be accepted or ignored. Cause those ideas are good, excellent but not right.
Anyone who wants to offer any good suggestions to modify the current COE Scheme must take note of who it shall benefit. Otherwise, no matter how good or brilliant the suggestion is, it will simply go into the waste bin, wasted time and effort.
Now did I get my right idea across? It is the goals and objectives of the COE Scheme that determine how it should be designed, what to consider and what not to consider. Get it?
Anyone still wants to offer the best formula, the correct solution or better please think what is the right scheme first?
PM Lee said we need to have the right politics first!
ReplyDeleteThen the right economics, and hopefully the right COE!
So right politics is the root of all the right things, tio bo?
But of course right politics to PM Lee and PAP may not be right for WP or even for me.
So RB, you are right on what is right.
Yes,
ReplyDeleteme can guarantee that a ballot scheme will satisfy everyone.
Just charge the lucky people a hundred or two for administration fee.
Few will complain, BUT, the best method may not suit the schemer(s). That is the Big Problem.
Yah?
Agree. There is no such thing as a correct COE system. The government will always be the biggest winner in any case. Seriously, if the government truly wanted to control the number of vehicles on the road, it must manage it through the pay-as-you-use system like the current ERP. No point charging a token amount and expect car numbers to drop. Each time I look at the ERP Gantry, I am angry because these are nothing but another way of sucking our money but do little to control traffic.
ReplyDeleteRB ya lar, it's the same for primary registration. When I registered my first kid, we are in phase 3C cause we got nothing to be included in earlier phase. So Bo bian lor. But then later, the younger kids are in phase 1 so other parents kpkb with their first kid said wrong scheme.
ReplyDeleteNow my kids are alumni members so in future their kids are in phase 2A, almost guaranteed to get in I read from papers parents with first kid said this is wrong scheme. But once their first kid is in and their second kid in phase 1, then they said better don't change the scheme though they live 10 km away and give the places to kids within one km. so you are absolutely right, the scheme right or not to even a person can change over the year. Tio Bo?
If pap can solve the COE issue, they will be rewarded with 68% in 2016! If they can also stop the rising property prices and bring prices of new hdb flats down, they will get 75% ..................if cant, they get only XX%!
ReplyDeleteTIO BO?
ReplyDeleteYou're making me cry BOO HOO.
12.56 pm u sure or not about the 75% if property price is down. Again is that the right policy. For people who have two properties, they do not want the price to come down. For people who has one property and no kids in sinkie land, they also don't want the price to drop. For sinkie planning to migrate, they wanted the price to go higher. Only sinkie with kids who has one property like me don't mind the price drop . But for others, they may want he price to drop but once their kids bought the property, they switch to group who wanted the price to go up.
ReplyDeleteSo like the primary school registration case, right or wrong even for one person can change lar. Tio Bo?
Tio! This is what RB trying to say. Depending on which angle you are looking at the issue - All Tio.
ReplyDeleteRb..COE..ERP..only designed to enrich the government but u'll be hard pressed to find that manifesto in its objectives...taking it to the idiocy level...Singapore must be the only place in the universe wanting to charge motorists entering the CBD after office hours..I would have thought that u want to encourage people to enter CBD after office hours to help the poor retailers..but the sounds of ka Ching ka Ching too hard to resist...
ReplyDeleteGahmen is greedy othrwise just allocate 25% of COE revenue to a national lottery. So if COE rev is $1b per month, $500m go to improving roads and public transport, $250m to coffers and $250m to lottery. Only eligible households with at least one driver's licence can take part. No repeat winners ie winners will drop out from future lotteries and barred from bidding COEs for 10 years. $50k per prize, every month 5000 winners. Its a trade off for not owning a car. See who's complaining now.
ReplyDeleteSorry miscalculate COE rev $100m so $25m alloted to the lottery ie about 500 winners per month.Also eligible households are non car households.
ReplyDeleteThe right thing to do is to abolish the coe system so prices of basic food and goods can come down. In return, the gov can increase the road tax for the car 1x, 2x, 30x depending on the type of car and situation of household (commercial car not included). In other words, those owning sports or luxury cars should be paying much more road tax than someone who own a small car who needs to ferry kids/elderly to school/hospital.
ReplyDeleteGuys,
ReplyDelete1) Like that everything depends on whose angle seeing what then no need make decision liao or rather no difference from the lalang grass ( aka spineless ) just bend with the wind can liao, depending on when one needs to be the good, the bad or the ugly? Based on this logic, if one day your position suffices, your grandmother also sells away?
2) Western Philosopher Jeremy Bentham advocated "greatest good for greatest number" but it is not always morally true. If some curious guys not convinced on this, I can give them an example.
3) Asian renowned philosopher Confucius: "三军可夺帅也,匹夫不可夺志也。"
Anyway, looking at the "mess" we are in --- likely need some bazooka/ shock and awe/ bold solutions to have any fighting chance to make any progress. Problem is whether there is any political will and any determined "bean" ( - "red, green, whatever bean, long bean, French bean, kidney bean etc" ) Any volunteer? Kee Chiu? How?
Ahem, agree. Now we need someone in a position to do the right thing to come out with the right policies on COE.
ReplyDeleteEveryone on the street can see the host of problems with the current COE system. Our super talents too can see it. Why are they not wanting to change it? Just like the discrimination of Sinkies from jobs. They knew the problem but not wanting to deal with it till now.
I always like to say that the super talents are real super talents, not fake certificates. They know what they are doing and only if they want to do the right thing in the interest of the people. Then you will get the real brilliant solutions to the COE problems with real great schemes.
It is not political will. That one they have ample of it. It is political interest that is troubling.
Tio bo boo hoo hoo. Sob sob. So sad.
ReplyDelete@ RB 5.04 pm
ReplyDelete"It is not political will. That one they have ample of it. It is political interest that is troubling."
Uncle Chua,
You are being so direct. But I think the people like it :)
Anyway, did you just "kee chiu"?
Or we misinterpreted you?
The only way that everything can be made right again is to have the right leaders. Which basically means a change is necessary. And the right time for a change is 2016.
ReplyDeleteThat is all I have to say.
Please lah, where got problem with COE.
ReplyDeleteCannot see meh? Traffic jam everywhere because of branded SUVs and Continental cars. Dont see your neighbours owing multiple cars?
Carparks oso not enough, got to build multi storey ones for You somemore.
Still want to kpkb.
Is true. Where got problem with COE. It must be CHEAP, otherwise people wont pay for it.
ReplyDeletePeople are so willing to part with $120,000.00 for an entry level Japanese/Korean car.
Where got problem with COE?
I have to save on all things to buy a car if not can not survive lat. my home is 0.6 km from nearest bus stop. Nearest supermarket and wet market are 4 km away. Have to buy food and necessities for family of 6. How to bring all things home with so many items. My old terrace house is not bungalow hor?
ReplyDeleteCar no need lah. Public transport so convenient, so good, so cheap. Why stupid people want to spend so much on a car when they don't need to?
ReplyDeleteYou want to stay in terrace house why you complain?
U think all terrace house owners are rich is it? It costs less than your 99 years condo 800 sq FT of $900,000 hor. I already over 60 can not carry all those items mah. Unless u want to help me to carry them every week.
ReplyDelete8.38pm, u better don't volunteer cause all those stuff are heavy. If u carry all these for 0.6 km, your balls may drop hor. Don't say I did not warn u ok
ReplyDeleteHow about ask your MP to help you.....
ReplyDeleteThe biggest problems is with Cat C for goods vehicles and buses. These serve the community and the high prices will translate to inflation. There should be a different scheme for these type.
ReplyDelete8.59 u want your mp balls to drop? Then no more next talented generation ok?
ReplyDelete2.37 scheme can change to a rebate so 500,000 non owning households get $50 cash every month. Now you will have a group who wants COEs to go up bcos they will get higher rebates.
ReplyDeleteCOE.
ReplyDeleteAnother PAPing gahmen money-making scheme gone out of control.
Vote out the bastards!
Continuation of Part 2/5 @ PSS 11.07 am from RB 18 Jul 2013 “MOM Charged 25 FTs for Forging Certificates” post:
ReplyDeleteConstructive Suggestions For Sustainable Sg Part 3/5
The last time COE rose to a record was around 1996. Then the used car prices were probably even higher than now. But the 1997/ 98 Asian Financial Crisis changed all that. It was followed by the 2,000 Dotcom bust, 2001 911, 2003 Gulf War and 2003 SARs crisis.
Can we rule out such scenarios recurring? Probably not. If we assume now to be 1996, then 2003 would be around 2020. But 2013 - 2020 would be a very different setting from 1996 - 2003. In what ways?
One, our society ability to cushion such an impact may not be inherently as strong as then. By then, the first batch of the post-war baby boomers generation ( meaning RB and his cohort ) would be about 74 years old. By then, if we plot a graph of the birth rate in Singapore vs the mortality rate, the rapidly rising mortality curve would probably be closing its gap with the birth rate curve by 2020 and from then on going on a steep upward trajectory whereas the birth rate curve probably would be on a gentle slope decline or even a steep decline depending on the social setting then. Meaning by 2025, our population pyramid would be heaviest around the 60-64 age group and from then onwards the mortality rate would be higher than our birth rate and on a much steeper trajectory. This implies that the gap between the mortality rate and the birth rate would be increasing every year from then on.
This is where the "pay back" time of a capitalist society comes in. Basically, in every capitalist society, merit, demerit and public goods exist due to the way the free market price mechanism system functions. There is always non-production of public goods such as roads, law and order, defence etc by the market due to the nature of the product or service. Likewise, over-production of demerit goods such as pollution etc exists but the cost are not fully borned by the producers. On the other hand, under-production of merit goods such as education exists and government intervention in the form of massive subsidies has to come in otherwise there would be severe under-consumption which would lead to a less productive society qualitatively later on. That explains why parents of Primary 1 to JC 2 students pay only a token of the educational fees every month.
The crux is that the “under-consumption” of TFR ( merit goods ) is also a positive externality by-product of the capitalist free market price mechanism system. Government all over the world always wave off low TFR premised on the excuse that it is a natural phenomenal given the nature of life style associated with a economy evolving from a developing to a developed stage. On the other hand, since time “immemorial”, capitalist society governments are fully aware of the other by-product of the capitalist free market price mechanism system which is negative externalities such as pollution and they would without fail levy a huge “tax” direct or indirect on it. The incidence of high liquor and cigarettes tax are classic examples. Carbon tax levied on manufacturers for pollution is another classic example in many countries.
This is where the problem of our low TFR comes in.
Let's begin with a brief history on our TFR trajectory in the last 33 years since 1980.
PS: To be continued Part 4/ 5 Constructive Suggestions For Sustainable Sg
By PSS – Pro Sustainable Sinagpore
Continuation of Part 3/5 @ PSS 10.28 pm:
ReplyDeleteConstructive Suggestions For Sustainable Singapore Part 4/5
When former MM Lee first brought up the issue of non and late marriages among some segments of our population and the low “production” birth rate even among some married couples in the early eighties, our TFR stood at 1.82 in the year 1980. Some government intervention was taken while the TFR was on a declining trend and reached a low of about 1.61 in 1985. However, somehow former MM Lee was able to arrest the falling trend of the TFR even given the rapid development of our economy except of course the 2 years of recession and slow growth in 1985 and 1986. In fact, TFR tend to be at its worst in a capitalist society during a downturn. By 1990, not only the declining trend was kept at bay, the TFR even registered a marginal higher level in 1990 of 1.83 than 10 years earlier in 1980 ( 1.82 ) which was arguably a phenomenal achievement in the light of TFR being a “merit goods” and tend to decline with economic progress as more women get better educated and family formation tend to be put on the back burner or later stage with “potentially disastrous consequences on the social and individual levels” over the longer term period.
This is where the “troubling part” comes into play in Singapore's case.
ESM Goh was a First Class Economics graduate from University of Singapore in the 1960s and presumably an outstanding government scholar. What I mentioned in Part 3/5 ( Constructive Suggestions For Sustainable Singapore ) about merit goods, demerit goods and public goods are essentially very “kindergarden economic stuff” and was explained in a very “abc” simple format for the benefit of non-economics trained readers. I am sure many first time readers of such a simple economic concept would even have understood by now the implications and long term consequences of letting economic externalities ( merit goods ) “LEFT UNATTENDED TO” in a capitalist free market price mechanism economic system. With ESM Goh's pedigree and illustrious academic record especially in economics, it would be very surprising if he is unaware of the serious long term consequences, implications and ramifications of no massive government intervention in such an economic externality ( merit goods – TFR – Total Fertility Rate ) while driving property prices and car prices through the roof starting from 1990 when he took over the “political leadership baton” from former MM Lee in the year 1990.
As the 2nd leader of a young nation, what should his priorities be? ( Oops, this I must clarify. I mean national priorities ). Right now, many may have reaped the huge economic benefits of ESM Goh economic and social policies during his watch from 1990 to 2004 as Singapore's 2nd PM. But on the other hand, the huge social and economic costs of those policies that current and future generations need to pay and “foot the bill” cannot be ignored or swept under the carpet. Future generations explicitly means our children and grandchilden if we are still around as a viable political, economic and social entity between 2040 – 2080 which is actually not that far off the horizon. Many of our children probably would still be around to witness 2080 when it comes by, less mentioning our grandchildren. The issue is, what kind of future or scenario would they herald in between 2040 and 2080? Have our generation and the post-war baby boomers' generation's leaders given our future generation a brighter future to look forward to or would it turn out to be a full circle of history meaning their future would be more like our grandparents in the pre and post war periods of 1930s to 1960s?
The COE quota systems I believe was started in 1990, the year ESM GOH took over the rein in Singapore from our former MM Lee.
Now, let's continue on the TFR story.
PS: To be continued Part 5/ 5 Constructive Suggestions For Sustainable Sg
By PSS – Pro Sustainable Singapore
Continuation of Part 4/5 @ PSS 19 Jul 2013 10.28 pm:
ReplyDeleteConstructive Suggestions For Sustainable Singapore Part 5/5
In 1990, when ESM Goh took over the “political leadship baton” from former MM Lee, the TFR was at a relative high of 1.83, quite near to the replacement rate of 2.1 per married couple. In 1990, at the beginning of ESM Goh's rein in Singapore as the 2nd PM, the price of an average 4-room HDB flat is about 3 years of a fresh graduate starting pay. The TFR then was 1.83. By the end of ESM Goh rein in 2004, TFR dropped to 1.24 but the price of an average 4-room HDB flat easily went up by about 300% in terms of a fresh graduate starting pay as compared to 1990 when ESM Goh took office.
According to Index Mundi ( a global country by country information site ), with its source from the CIA World Factbook, Singapore is currently ranked 222 in the whole world in terms of its TFR, one notch below Macau ( ranked 221 ), two notches below Hong Kong ( 220 ) and three notches below Taiwan ( 219 ). According to Index Mundi tabulation, currently there isn't any other country below Singapore in terms of TFR.
According to Professor Wolfgang Lutz, Founding Director of the Wittgenstein Centre for Demography and Global Human Capital, in the long-term (year 2100), Singapore 's ideal TFR should be 1.7 taking into account the maximisation of our society’s dependency ratio.
Some years back, there was an article analysing the rapid re-building in war-torn Germany and Japan after the destructions, ruins and devastations of their country, economy and substantial population base during World War II. How did they do it? What were the main success factors?
Right now, similarly we should ask ourselves what are the factors that would likely determine our future success and sustainability. If we were to be asked to name one crucial factor, what would it be?
Arguably, to forge ahead and avoid the many potential pitfalls and clifts awaiting us, the people alone or the government alone is quite likely to fail in this venture. To put it in a simple way, the people and the government should work as one and achieve a common goal or some common objectives together – One People, One Nation. In reality, it's far easier said than done. Where is the trust and common bond between the people and the government? Going by the latest PE by election poll in late Jan 2013, the ruling party's highly qualified and illustrious candidate as compared to the opposition garnered far less than 50% of the SMC ward electoral votes. Why was the outcome as such?
After the 2011 GE, the government, led by the ruling party, slashed ministerial salary by about 37%. The prime minister salary was chopped from about S$3 million to S$2 million. This is no peanut amount. However, did that reverse the trend and increase the electorates support for the ruling party. Going by the empirical voting pattern and result of the Jan 2013 PE by election, it seems that such significant and appeasing action by the government ( ruling party ) may not have significantly altered the electorates perception of the government. Of course there were other factors involved in that particular by election but it still implied that the salary reduction did not feature significantly in voters' final decision.
Going back on what would decide Singapore's future, a careful analysis should lead us to our demography, birth rate or TFR and sustainability of our future work force quantitatively and qualitatively. Next, to forge ahead as a nation, likely we would need the people and government “to synchronise” in one heart beat rather than drastically different rhythm from each other. Third, what is generally holding back people's support for the government now and likely in the future? One nagging factor that is generally agreed is the mass influx of foreign workforce and the whole range of social and employment unhappiness that accompany it.
How about a “SUPER 3-in-1” solution mix that possibly can solve the above three issues?
By PSS, To Be Continued .......
<> by 唐·刘禹锡
ReplyDelete"山不在高，有仙则名。水不在深，有龙则灵。斯是陋室，惟吾德馨。苔痕上阶绿，草色入帘青。谈笑有鸿儒，往来无白丁。可以调素琴，阅金经。无丝竹之乱耳，无案牍之劳形。南阳诸葛庐，西蜀子云亭。孔子云：何陋之有？"
Whether is it a 10,000 sq ft landed bungalow, 30,000 sq ft GCW ( Good Class Bungalow ), 900 sq ft 4-room HDB pigeon hole, 400 sq ft HDB 2-rm mini-pigeon hole or 250 sq ft HDB 1-room super mini-pigeon hole, it really does not matter.
Our parents and grand parents survived in 1950s/ 1960s built 1-room and 2-room super mini-pigeon hole and mini-pigeon hole respectively. They managed to raise easily 4 to 8 children each. Many of that generation grew up to become highly educated and successful in lives.
Right now, it does not really matter about who stay in a 30,000 sq ft GCW and who stay in a 400 sq ft 2-room mini-pigeon hole HDB flat. To me, to each his/ her own. In a capitalist system, if one can do well, society should encourage them but obviously I do not mean via crooked or evil ways at the huge expense of others in the society.
What is most crucial is to ensure long term sustainability in Singapore. No?
/// Right now, it does not really matter about who stay in a 30,000 sq ft GCW and who stay in a 400 sq ft 2-room mini-pigeon hole HDB flat. ///
ReplyDeleteThen why not millionaire minister take a salary reduction?
Why must pay-bribe them with a million dollar salary to be honest?
Is LKY saying that our ministers cannot be trusted if they are paid a lower salary?
/// What is most crucial is to ensure long term sustainability in Singapore. No? ///
ReplyDeleteSo how to do this?
Ask Singaporeans to pay more in taxes, HDB flats, COE?
Give up our jobs to Foreigners?
Our children to become hawkers while foreign children go to our universities with PAP gahmen scholarships?
And pay millions to our ministers to ensure their honesty?
Thanks for the lecture, PSS. Your comment,
ReplyDelete'Whether is it a 10,000 sq ft landed bungalow, 30,000 sq ft GCW ( Good Class Bungalow ), 900 sq ft 4-room HDB pigeon hole, 400 sq ft HDB 2-rm mini-pigeon hole or 250 sq ft HDB 1-room super mini-pigeon hole, it really does not matter.
Our parents and grand parents survived in 1950s/ 1960s built 1-room and 2-room super mini-pigeon hole and mini-pigeon hole respectively. They managed to raise easily 4 to 8 children each. Many of that generation grew up to become highly educated and successful in lives.'
I think not many will agree with you on this. It may not matter if one is living in a 10,000 or 30,000 sq ft bungalow, but it seriously does matter to go back to one room for 5 or 8 people. It is serious matter to go below 900 sq ft for a healthy family of 4.
We must not be conned by sickos to say that living in dog kennels will not affect the quality of life. It does, and hell of a lot.
As a Govt, it should seek as a major goal, to provide the people with decent quality of living and I think a 1,500 sq ft unit for a family of 4 should be the desired goal.
This govt is leading the people in the wrong direction, going smaller and smaller for the people but bigger and bigger for themselves. Oops, it is the right direction for them.
The 6.9m is going to make things even worse. The people must stop this govt from going along this treacherous path. We need a decent quality of life, and a decent home with a decent breathing space is very important.
Do not romanticise of the old days of poverty. We must seek to improve our life and make living better and better and not worse and worse. No Ah Q mentality. Don't be conned.
"No Ah Q mentality. Don't be conned.", unquote.
ReplyDeleteOne is either with the Establishment or at disagreement with it.
So, there are bootlickers and there are dissenters. They know themselves and others are also able to discern who they are.
No worry about anyone getting conned.
@ RB 9.41 am
ReplyDelete"Thanks for the lecture, PSS"
If I am writing too much here, pls explicitly tell me, otherwise often silence can be seen as a consent. I will know what to do if you expressed so and I would "respect" your sentiment. Maybe I should create another blog and post my further comments there. Thank you very much anyway. I have "enjoyed" expressing my views/ humble but sincere suggestions here. You guys continue to enjoy your time here.
Otherwise, I am "happy" with the exchanges with you and some of the commentators here and as you said, "you sometimes intentionally write provocatively to elicit some hard thinkings and crystallisation of thoughts."
To be a mature nation, we need to be mature adults and I take all these as mere "on line discussions and debates" to come to a consensus/ agreement or an agreement to disagree.
Anyway, I do not get any benefit for doing all these, not even kopi c or kopi kau. Think about it, why should I be "bootlickers", "dissenters" or doing all these for? Can't anybody be entitled to their independent thinking and choice in a democratic setting? Must I vote or say or write what others think fit including those of co-drivers and their "ardent supporters"? Must I only read or write only the "right things" as seen fit by people including the co-drivers and their "ardent supporters"? Are you implying the middle ground and moderate voters can't have their own independent thinking/ choice? Just because some people are calling them "sinkies" and "daft" etc, then they must be made "guilty" and "think and make choices" not to their own wishes/ choices.
Anyway, despite the "diatribes" against the so called "evil empire" here, apparently there are many anon 11.11 am 20 Jul 2013 type of "mini George Bushes" here. I quote anon 11.11 am, "One is either with the Establishment or at disagreement with it.
So, there are bootlickers and there are dissenters. They know themselves and others are also able to discern who they are." Unquote
Sounds familiar? Think 911. Think what formal US President George Bush said after 911. "You are either with them or against them."
Isn't democratic rights/ freedom of choice/ freedom of speech/ expression what you guys are fighting for. Or you guys are also advocating double/ triple/ quadruple standards? No?
In the right spirit, no one should be forcing/ imposing their will on anybody. Frankly, my "greatest fear" is opposition behaving as such ..... Do you think I am the only one seeing it in this perspective and light?
Lastly, pending your further reply, I shall ponder further comments on your blog. The objective is for a national common good, not to win any argument or score any point. I am sad that your Chinese isn't that good otherwise you would have understood the deeper meaning of the Chinese poem by the Tang Dynasty poet 刘禹锡 quoted in the comment you responded:
"山不在高，有仙则名。水不在深，有龙则灵。斯是陋室，惟吾德馨。苔痕上阶绿，草色入帘青。谈笑有鸿儒，往来无白丁。可以调素琴，阅金经。无丝竹之乱耳，无案牍之劳形。南阳诸葛庐，西蜀子云亭。孔子云：何陋之有？"
This poem was written during the Tang Dynasty by 刘禹锡 in reference to the work/ deed/ philosophy of Confucius. I thought you are an ardent believer in China and the 5000 years of literature, arts, history, culture, resurgence etc? No again?
Anyway, it is no fun writing all these in a way. I could have used the time spent with my family, earn more money or look around outside Singapore for potential "greener pastures". You sometimes lament that we need people to contribute so that this place won't sink yet you are " rude and mean" at times when there are disagreements? Is this the way forward? You think majority will follow? You think majority cannot discern between daily repeated diatribes vs real good intents? Why the politics of envy?
'I think a 1,500 sq ft unit for a family of 4 should be the desired goal.'
ReplyDelete- I agree with u. Anything above that is difficult to maintain and a waste of resources. Anything below that is crowded.
"To be a mature nation, we need to be mature adults,". Unquote.
ReplyDeleteHaha.....
the folks here are mostly the elderlies, grandpas and grandmas who had been through the Colonial Days and some under the Japanese Occupation.
Most are old ginger(老葁)
还可能有老狐狸。
怕辣怕修的要注意哦。
Meaning anyone who cannot take ythe heat should not cook.
Delete